[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

[Stan Stockton]

Rudy,

There has been no argument in the past few months or perhaps years regarding the assisted class as it is defined.  Memory keyers and computer logging have been around for decades and no one has been using those as examples of assistance and saying that it should put the operator in the assisted category until now.

The SO Assisted Category has been generally thought of as a class where the operator can make use of spotting to alert him as to who is on what frequency.  That is what separates the two categories.  The use of a local Skimmer setup provides the same type of help, only better since it will not clutter the screen up with spots that cannot be heard at the local QTH.

The question is why in the world does anyone want to change the category that most people enter by allowing a local spotting effort when there is a category that already allows the use of spotting?  Is it not reasonable to allow those who want to compete with their skills of working CW against others who will use their skills and let them have their fun too?  

At this stage, no one is saying abolish Skimmer and hang VE3NEA.  They are only saying, we want to compete in a CW contest in the category of entry that allows one to use his talent at working CW instead of making it muddy by lumping everyone in a category where anything goes.

This is going to get really interesting when a decision is made regarding single operator categories and progresses to multi-operator categories.  

Is it ok to have a network of Skimmers outside the 500 meter circle feeding spots to a multi-multi station?  Maybe I need to build some mono-banders and put them up at my nice quiet location 5 miles from my contest station.    

If I were working a contest as single operator, Skimmer would be great for me and would level the playing field to some degree versus someone who was actually good.  However, I admire those who have become proficient at using two radios effectively and don't think it is right to take away their ability to compete in a class with other competitors who are finding stations to work and working them without the use of a code reading, wide band spotting apparatus.

I'm going to have to practice my CW sending now that I know so many are using code readers... :-)  Maybe I'm too old at age 54 and just don't get it.  I still send about 95% of what is sent with one of those new fangled, iambic paddles.  WHY?  The answer is that it is more fun for me -  just like it is more fun for some to continue to compete in a category that has never allowed a code reading machine to tell the competitor what is being sent and on what frequency it is being sent.  There is no reason to take away their fun when there is a category that already allows the operator to receive spots.

Stan, K5GO
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rudy Bakalov 
  To: Stan Stockton ; cq-contest at contesting.com 
  Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 3:34 PM
  Subject: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer


  Stan,

  I believe many have already made a compelling case that there is no such a thing as unassisted anymore- we all use some sort of automation to achieve competitive advantage- keyers, computer logging, auto-tune amplifiers, etc. Why only focus on Skimmer or DX clusters?

  If we examine the type of contesters who may use such aids, we will find out that they already have a decent station that can support rapid band changes; otherwise the extra multiplier will not be worth the lost QSOs on the current band due to antenna switching, PA tuning, etc.  However, well equipped stations will always outperform "basic" stations and, therefore, the assisted category does not offer any relief to the "basic" stations.  Just think about it- if I wanted to take advantage of Skimmer, I would need at least a SO2R set-up and a SDR, which already assumes a better equipped station; do you really think that adding Skimmer to the station is going to significantly impact my competitive advantage?

  At the end of the day, winning a contest takes maximum efforts in station and antenna engineering, operating strategy planning and execution, skills, and stamina.  The SO1R vs SO2R debate is perhaps a better way to address the difference in station equipment and its impact on contest categories.

  Rudy N2WQ

  Stan Stockton <k5go at cox.net> wrote:
    Rudy N2WQ Wrote:
    > As long as it is not robots making 
    > the QSO and station 
    > transmitter/receiver are not scattered 
    > across the globe, let the humans use 
    > as much technology as they can.

    Now we have something to talk about.... 
    How do you propose eliminating that 
    next, rather easy step up from Skimmer - 
    Robotic Automated QSO machines?

    It is refreshing to find that seemingly 
    someone who is questioning whether there 
    should be a category to differentiate 
    between someone who is working the 
    contest with his own skills versus using 
    a computer to tell him what stations are 
    active, what frequency they are 
    operating on, what they are sending, 
    etc. would perhaps want to draw a line 
    in the sand before the whole thing is 
    turned into a computer game...

    I assumed everyone who wanted to allow 
    Skimmer in the unassisted category or 
    wanted to diminish the whole sport by 
    eliminating the number one category of 
    entry would also welcome the next 
    logical step which would be to replace 
    the operator with machines to 
    automatically make the QSOs and log them 
    for you.

    Stan, K5GO 








------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1397 - Release Date: 4/25/2008 7:42 AM